2010 Hyundai Getz 1.4L5 spd Manual3 Door Hatch195,000kmsOnly 2 ownersFull service historyLast minor service was completed at 193,000kmMajor timing belt service completed at 183,000kmNew front brakes pads & discsNew batteryRWC providedRegistration until Aug 2018Some minor scratches and dents but overall very good condition and well looked after mechanically.Car has been run on premium 98 fuel its whole lifeMakes for a very fuel efficient and reliable run about or first car.Surprising storage space in boot when the rear seats are down.
Price is $3650
Call or text to come and inspect today.Car is located in South East suburbs of Melbourne
Peter
0413 785 268
More pics here: Gumtree Ad

Selling 6 x 25kg rubber coated Olympic plates. Brand new plates, I've only removed them from the box, they have some scuffs on them from sitting on the floor but never been used.
Price for all the plates ( 150kg ) $400
OR $65 per plate. These retail for close to $100 each.
Pick up only
I live in S.E suburbs of Melbourne.
txt msg only during business hours.
0413 - 785 - 26eight
Price is negotiable. make an offer.

Make : HYUNDAI GETZ Transmission : Manual Kilometres : 69000 Price : $7,250 Condition : Used 2010 Hyundai Getz
1.4lt 5spd
Black
3 door hatch
10 months rego, RWC , full service history, open to reasonable offers.
Im the 2nd owner of this car, I bought it when it had 30,000kms on it and it hasn't missed service.
The log book is all filled out. Last service was done in Mid October 2013.
Car averages 550kms per tank and costs about $50 to fill up on premium. The car is excellent condition inside and out.
There is a small scratch on the drivers side door which was there when I bought the car.
Never had a problem with this car, very reliable. Would make a perfect first car or for anyone wanting to save money on fuel.
email - peterjmarrinon@gmail.com
phone - 0413 785 268

Quoting because it's the only relevent thing in this whole thread.
So there is a core definition of marriage that isn't open to interpretation ?
Nope you're wrong again.
you had started your argument by stating the definition of marriage was the binding of man and woman for eternity, and that same sex couples should get another label. We were stating that marriage is the union of two beings in love. If there are any differences when it comes to defining marriage then the concept is open to interpretation...
I think i understand what you're saying now. So because other countries have defined marriage differently, we have the right to redefine it how we see fit ?
The point I was trying to make was that when you guys stated "Marriage is the union of two beings in love". Who says so? Whats that grounded in. and Why can't that part be redefined just like the gender of the two people is being redefined now.
When for 1000's of years its been between man and woman, its now "any two beings". How could you argue against someone redefining it again to allow it to be a union of 3 people, or incest ?.......... or a wall in Berlin lol

How does a different title mean they aren't equal?
Here's a counter. Why is there a need to drum up another title?
Thats a good question but it doesn't answer mine.
To answer yours I'd say that the reason for a new title is because we have a group of people who's relationship lies outside the fundamental definition of marriage. It has been defined this way forever, certain amendments have been made so that law is blind to peoples race and sexual orientation. ( Because race etc were discriminatory.) but we need a reason to change a fundamental.
If someone wanted to redefine what an "heir" was. So that "you didn't have to be a direct relative of the person to receive their title or possessions" because they felt the law was discriminating against people who weren't direct relatives. You would think they were unjustified.
The law regarding marriage is in place already, if it is going to be changed, we need a good reason to change. It is a backwards approach to say " Do we have a good reason NOT to change it"
Why would a new term e.g. "Civil Paternship" no be able to address the issue of inequality?
If marriage is just a social convention there isn't anything sacred about it.

Hey mate, just have some questions about the arguments you put forward.
I think these people would say marriage has an ideal that we should strive towards. Just because some have fallen shorter than others, does that mean people should give up their ideals altogether ?
eg. Would that be like reasoning: "Everyone thinks its a good idea not to hurt other people. Some people have hurt others. So now we shouldn't make a big deal about people hurting each other" ?
The Bible does say marriage is between a man and a woman. It also speaks about same sex relationships being forbidden ( for christian believers )
I'm not trying to turn this into a Bible / Christianity discussion so i left out your other bible objections to keep it on topic.

The media currently portrays Gay marriage as a topic that weighs heavily on voters decision making.
More and more states in U.S are legalising it.
The oxford dictionary in the UK has just updated their definition of marriage to parallel their recent change in legislation.
So are you FOR or AGAINST this law being passed in Australia ? and more importantly What are your reasons for holding that view ?